Yes, but many Israelis find the very idea of Palestine hateful, too. The point is, this cuts both ways. The settlers, whether or not "most Israelis" consider them the major stumbling block (as though this is up for public opinion votes) certainly are one of the most contentious issues, no matter how hard you work to glean all the most one-sided passages you can possibly find from this article. The point is, Israel is held to a higher standard because they are the functioning government, they have the democratic system, they are the more powerful, and supposedly more morally grounded of the two parties.
Yes, but here's the problem: The film is supposed to send that message. The film, if done well, does send the message, does convey the moral lesson. "Milk" which I haven't seen yet, I imagine makes a lot people consider the gay marriage debate as it stands today in California and America etc. It does this on its own. When an actor from the movie then feels the need to further drive the point home he is either being redundant, or unintentionally doing harm to the cause he is advocating.
It's the old "show, don't tell" adage. It's not that they don't have a right or that it doesn't make sense, it's that it's counter-productive. So yes, I would extend this to any sort of them, be it domestic violence or gay rights or war. Let the picture do the talking.
I dunno, Freddie. I think Hollywooders should keep politics out of their speeches for a few reasons, not the least of which is they're perfect targets for their critics, who can then use whatever is said to pass judgment on the entire cause. Sean Penn is just such an easy target now, and to some extent deservedly so. There is just so much perceived hubris (and often very real hubris) when dealing with movie stars and musicians etc. It's not that they don't have a right to their opinions, or that they aren't valid opinions, it's just that it's sort of hard to take anyone living in that realm of glitz and glamor seriously, whether or not they have valid things to say. This is the trouble with Bono, also. Everything in Hollywood is an illusion. How are we mere mortals supposed to take anything they say as the truth?
And at what point does the laxity in defining things render the power of words meaningless altogether? I'm torn, I really am. Self-identification vs. meaning. It's almost just another version of the "individual vs the group"...
Cindy, I very much agree with you on all your points. I make a point of mentioning in the post that I still can't accept Mormonism as Christianity, but that there really is some value in self-identification. It's tricky, and certainly your example holds a great deal of water. Words and labels do matter a great deal, but then again, I don't want to get into the exclusivity game. As some commenters have rightly pointed out, within what I might consider the Christian flock, many a denomination will call-out another as not truly being Christian. I would mostly say this comes down to a certain pettiness, rather than a real theological understanding, but who can say?
So I'll say again, under my definition of the word, the LDS church certainly does fall outside the bounds of Christianity, but I'm uncertain that this would be universally accepted, and to some degree we do all have the right to self-identify. Where to draw that line is, for lack of a better phrase, "above my pay grade."
Thanks, Mike. Makes sense to me....certainly I can understand why mainstream LDS wouldn't want to be confused with the likes of Warren Jeffs and his Colorado City FLDS church etc. etc.
Where, specifically, does McCain demonstrate his “inherent lack of understanding?” McCain calls you a “noted Middle East policy scholar.” Where did you come by your expertise?
Look both the WWI/WWII analogy and the Civil War analogy ring hopelessly untrue in the Middle East context. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations. This sort of "utter defeat" you're talking about absolutely will not lead to peace. It will lead to a much, much longer conflict.
Oh, and McCain was being sarcastic. I mean, as far as he knows, he has no idea who I am or what my background is. What he's right about is I'm no noted Mid-East scholar (that was his little sarcastic take-down moment). That doesn't mean I have no knowledge or expertise in this area, but yeah, I'm not a "scholar." I don't teach this madness.
Look, I do understand this idea that "total" defeat can lead to peace. But in the end, it almost always leads to ruin. The American South was pacified, yes, but broken and poisoned, socially and spiritually by the devastation. World War II found a populace in Germany only too ready to give up after years under Hitler. This is not the same climate as in Palestine. And beyond that, the Americans didn't try to set up settlements there. The Soviets occupied Germany for decades beyond that point but even that ended up failing.
What would happen in Palestine, assuming the Israelis could actually subdue the population of Palestinians without killing or expelling all of them? I'm not sure. Personally, I don't think it's possible. And I don't think that Israel wants to go to the place it would require going in order to kill or expel every last Palestinian. It's just not in their nature, or at least I hope it's not.
Just a quick response to the German thing - America and the Allied powers were responsible for some egregious war crimes against both the Japanese and Germans which due to our victory has been white-washed and sanitized, and finally glorified and sanctified in national myth. I mean this as no defense for the Nazis, but a whole lot of innocent German citizens were firebombed long after that was at all necessary. War rarely puts anyone on a moral high ground. Much more likely it makes monsters out of the good guys.
I'm a firm believer that Sherman's methods and the general treatment of the South by the North was tragic and unnecessary. A similar treatment of the Palestinians would also be tragic and unnecessary. So yeah, I agree...
Catholics also believe that actions play an important role in salvation
Actually all Christians believe actions are important, but regardless, at the end of a long life of sin one can still repent and ask forgiveness and be saved. This is true of Catholics as well. However Mormons believe to attain higher levels of heaven one must also perform good works. This is a crude summation, I realize, but it is a major distinction.
A great Realignment, as it were. Of course, in the real world everything consists of coalitions. And my idealism expressed here, and yours in the libera(l)tarian debate are both unlikely in the near future. But who knows? Every great once and a while an idealist is right...
In light of the recent discussions on the value of shame, how do you make sense of this? Is shame even available within ones ostensible group? Or, are some groups just impervious to shame?
Such a good question. I think shame has been replaced by all-or-nothings - in other words, "you're either with us, or against us" has become the new creed in many "groups" and "movements" and healthy shame is all but lost. So much more could be said about this....
Look, Philip, this was a hot-headed post. Mainly what I'm saying is that for years and years Republicans and conservatives turned a blind eye to out of control spending and pathetic governance, and now suddenly they've found fiscal spine? Maybe you're right. Maybe these protesters were doing this same thing during the Bush years, but I doubt it. This smacks of the luxury of no longer being in power.
This chart via Balloon Juice, is a visual aid for the kind of budgetary nonsense we put up with under Bush. Now only a few weeks into the new Administration we're seeing protests like this one in Mesa? The Party of Rush is acting like a bunch of children. These signs are embarrassing, or should be. I know conservatives can do better than this. You know what I mean? Take a higher road?
Joseph--the thing about entitlements and spending programs is they make for great sloganeering. On one side they promise the world, and people like that. On the other, for those against them, they make for great targets. In the end, though, a lot of people really do enjoy the benefits that they provide, but they are provided at such a cost and with such lousy efficiency that there really must be a better way...it's a tricky question. I think some means testing for things like social security is in order, to be sure...
So you're saying that these people were out protesting the massive spending under the Bush administration or the expansion of Government during the past eight years? Hey maybe. Maybe you're right. I doubt it, though. At least not in Arizona. Trust me, this is my home state, and these voters also voted McCain in - hardly the "fiscal conservative" move. Fact is, Arizonans have no idea what they want. This is just "following the leader, the leader, the leader wherever he may go...."
I also had a dual-boot on my Vista laptop with Mint, but had compatibility problems with my wireless card (IMO the single biggest problem with Linux).
Couldn't agree more. This is really the only reason I don't run on Linux. I can't stand the hit and miss wifi. Too absurd that it hasn't made greater leaps by now.
When was the last time a Microsoft product owned a market because it was the best product in the market?
Is there a better product than DX10 for graphics platforms on any other operating system for PCs? As far as I can tell, Microsoft was actually a good deal ahead of the hardware manufacturers in turning out software that could actually manage the sort of ridiculously graphics intense games we have now...
“If SSM were to be legalized today, 100 years from now the appropriate conservative position on SSM would be to preserve it if there were a movement to eliminate it.”
I was talking with my wife about the irony of religion, which acts in a similar fashion. It preserves traditions and makes them difficult to change. So, if SSM ever becomes widely accepted in religious communitites, it will in a sense be better preserved, harder to destroy. And at the same time, the religious elements within society also have provided the most resistance. So it's an Ironical Situation. But I think despite all the pushback from religion to things that have become widely socially acceptable, in the end its very valuable to preserve human tradition - new tradition is not a paradoxical statement either - and I think conservatism fills a similar role in politics and culture as well.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “reflections”
Yes, but many Israelis find the very idea of Palestine hateful, too. The point is, this cuts both ways. The settlers, whether or not "most Israelis" consider them the major stumbling block (as though this is up for public opinion votes) certainly are one of the most contentious issues, no matter how hard you work to glean all the most one-sided passages you can possibly find from this article. The point is, Israel is held to a higher standard because they are the functioning government, they have the democratic system, they are the more powerful, and supposedly more morally grounded of the two parties.
"
Dated, but still good.
On “can I just say…”
That should be "theme" there at the end. Not "them"...
"
Yes, but here's the problem: The film is supposed to send that message. The film, if done well, does send the message, does convey the moral lesson. "Milk" which I haven't seen yet, I imagine makes a lot people consider the gay marriage debate as it stands today in California and America etc. It does this on its own. When an actor from the movie then feels the need to further drive the point home he is either being redundant, or unintentionally doing harm to the cause he is advocating.
It's the old "show, don't tell" adage. It's not that they don't have a right or that it doesn't make sense, it's that it's counter-productive. So yes, I would extend this to any sort of them, be it domestic violence or gay rights or war. Let the picture do the talking.
"
I dunno, Freddie. I think Hollywooders should keep politics out of their speeches for a few reasons, not the least of which is they're perfect targets for their critics, who can then use whatever is said to pass judgment on the entire cause. Sean Penn is just such an easy target now, and to some extent deservedly so. There is just so much perceived hubris (and often very real hubris) when dealing with movie stars and musicians etc. It's not that they don't have a right to their opinions, or that they aren't valid opinions, it's just that it's sort of hard to take anyone living in that realm of glitz and glamor seriously, whether or not they have valid things to say. This is the trouble with Bono, also. Everything in Hollywood is an illusion. How are we mere mortals supposed to take anything they say as the truth?
On “A Top Ten List!”
Who says you can’t have both?
Now that's a good question...
On “Self-Identification, pluralism, and all that…”
And at what point does the laxity in defining things render the power of words meaningless altogether? I'm torn, I really am. Self-identification vs. meaning. It's almost just another version of the "individual vs the group"...
"
Cindy, I very much agree with you on all your points. I make a point of mentioning in the post that I still can't accept Mormonism as Christianity, but that there really is some value in self-identification. It's tricky, and certainly your example holds a great deal of water. Words and labels do matter a great deal, but then again, I don't want to get into the exclusivity game. As some commenters have rightly pointed out, within what I might consider the Christian flock, many a denomination will call-out another as not truly being Christian. I would mostly say this comes down to a certain pettiness, rather than a real theological understanding, but who can say?
So I'll say again, under my definition of the word, the LDS church certainly does fall outside the bounds of Christianity, but I'm uncertain that this would be universally accepted, and to some degree we do all have the right to self-identify. Where to draw that line is, for lack of a better phrase, "above my pay grade."
"
Thanks, Mike. Makes sense to me....certainly I can understand why mainstream LDS wouldn't want to be confused with the likes of Warren Jeffs and his Colorado City FLDS church etc. etc.
On “In which…”
Look both the WWI/WWII analogy and the Civil War analogy ring hopelessly untrue in the Middle East context. Israel is surrounded by hostile nations. This sort of "utter defeat" you're talking about absolutely will not lead to peace. It will lead to a much, much longer conflict.
Oh, and McCain was being sarcastic. I mean, as far as he knows, he has no idea who I am or what my background is. What he's right about is I'm no noted Mid-East scholar (that was his little sarcastic take-down moment). That doesn't mean I have no knowledge or expertise in this area, but yeah, I'm not a "scholar." I don't teach this madness.
Look, I do understand this idea that "total" defeat can lead to peace. But in the end, it almost always leads to ruin. The American South was pacified, yes, but broken and poisoned, socially and spiritually by the devastation. World War II found a populace in Germany only too ready to give up after years under Hitler. This is not the same climate as in Palestine. And beyond that, the Americans didn't try to set up settlements there. The Soviets occupied Germany for decades beyond that point but even that ended up failing.
What would happen in Palestine, assuming the Israelis could actually subdue the population of Palestinians without killing or expelling all of them? I'm not sure. Personally, I don't think it's possible. And I don't think that Israel wants to go to the place it would require going in order to kill or expel every last Palestinian. It's just not in their nature, or at least I hope it's not.
On “love of… what?”
Just a quick response to the German thing - America and the Allied powers were responsible for some egregious war crimes against both the Japanese and Germans which due to our victory has been white-washed and sanitized, and finally glorified and sanctified in national myth. I mean this as no defense for the Nazis, but a whole lot of innocent German citizens were firebombed long after that was at all necessary. War rarely puts anyone on a moral high ground. Much more likely it makes monsters out of the good guys.
On “In which…”
I'm a firm believer that Sherman's methods and the general treatment of the South by the North was tragic and unnecessary. A similar treatment of the Palestinians would also be tragic and unnecessary. So yeah, I agree...
On “Self-Identification, pluralism, and all that…”
Good question, Adam. I'm curious as well....
On ““by no definition of the word…””
D:
On “Growth and Prosperity”
A great Realignment, as it were. Of course, in the real world everything consists of coalitions. And my idealism expressed here, and yours in the libera(l)tarian debate are both unlikely in the near future. But who knows? Every great once and a while an idealist is right...
On “Republican Hypocrites”
Cascadian:
Such a good question. I think shame has been replaced by all-or-nothings - in other words, "you're either with us, or against us" has become the new creed in many "groups" and "movements" and healthy shame is all but lost. So much more could be said about this....
On “To Nationalize or Not To Nationalize?”
Dave:
That just reminded me of Iraq for reasons unknown...
On ““by no definition of the word…””
I'm going to link this again, because yesterday I stopped fighting this battle. Here is my update on this from yesterday. Thanks!
"
SC - That's a damn well-reasoned and compelling argument. Thanks.
On “Republican Hypocrites”
Look, Philip, this was a hot-headed post. Mainly what I'm saying is that for years and years Republicans and conservatives turned a blind eye to out of control spending and pathetic governance, and now suddenly they've found fiscal spine? Maybe you're right. Maybe these protesters were doing this same thing during the Bush years, but I doubt it. This smacks of the luxury of no longer being in power.
This chart via Balloon Juice, is a visual aid for the kind of budgetary nonsense we put up with under Bush. Now only a few weeks into the new Administration we're seeing protests like this one in Mesa? The Party of Rush is acting like a bunch of children. These signs are embarrassing, or should be. I know conservatives can do better than this. You know what I mean? Take a higher road?
Joseph--the thing about entitlements and spending programs is they make for great sloganeering. On one side they promise the world, and people like that. On the other, for those against them, they make for great targets. In the end, though, a lot of people really do enjoy the benefits that they provide, but they are provided at such a cost and with such lousy efficiency that there really must be a better way...it's a tricky question. I think some means testing for things like social security is in order, to be sure...
"
So you're saying that these people were out protesting the massive spending under the Bush administration or the expansion of Government during the past eight years? Hey maybe. Maybe you're right. I doubt it, though. At least not in Arizona. Trust me, this is my home state, and these voters also voted McCain in - hardly the "fiscal conservative" move. Fact is, Arizonans have no idea what they want. This is just "following the leader, the leader, the leader wherever he may go...."
On “Self-Identification, pluralism, and all that…”
That's interesting, Todd, but I hardly think the military has any say over theological matters. I certainly hope they don't.
On “Apple v. Microsoft”
Joseph:
I also had a dual-boot on my Vista laptop with Mint, but had compatibility problems with my wireless card (IMO the single biggest problem with Linux).
Couldn't agree more. This is really the only reason I don't run on Linux. I can't stand the hit and miss wifi. Too absurd that it hasn't made greater leaps by now.
"
When was the last time a Microsoft product owned a market because it was the best product in the market?
Is there a better product than DX10 for graphics platforms on any other operating system for PCs? As far as I can tell, Microsoft was actually a good deal ahead of the hardware manufacturers in turning out software that could actually manage the sort of ridiculously graphics intense games we have now...
On “Killing Frankenstein’s Monster”
“If SSM were to be legalized today, 100 years from now the appropriate conservative position on SSM would be to preserve it if there were a movement to eliminate it.”
I was talking with my wife about the irony of religion, which acts in a similar fashion. It preserves traditions and makes them difficult to change. So, if SSM ever becomes widely accepted in religious communitites, it will in a sense be better preserved, harder to destroy. And at the same time, the religious elements within society also have provided the most resistance. So it's an Ironical Situation. But I think despite all the pushback from religion to things that have become widely socially acceptable, in the end its very valuable to preserve human tradition - new tradition is not a paradoxical statement either - and I think conservatism fills a similar role in politics and culture as well.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.